DOCSLIB.ORG

A Quantitative Evaluation of Turnitin from an L2 Science and Engineering Perspective

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Quantitative Evaluation of Turnitin from an L2 Science and Engineering Perspective CALL-EJ, 17(1), 1-18 A Quantitative Evaluation of Turnitin from an L2 Science and Engineering Perspective Kathryn Oghigian ([email protected]) Waseda University, Japan Michael Rayner ([email protected]) Waseda University, Japan Kiyomi Chujo ([email protected]) Nihon University, Japan Abstract The purpose of this paper is to investigate the functionality and accuracy of Turnitin results as applied to 68 science and engineering research papers, and the potential use of the software in a second language context. Results showed Turnitin found “similar matching” in 99% of papers; however, an analysis eliminating false positives and categorizing actual plagiarism events as outright, paraphrase and patchwork plagiarism, or stealing an apt term showed only 29% featured plagiarized material, and in most cases, evidence suggested no intent to deceive. Findings indicate that Turnitin can be useful, particularly as a pedagogical rather than policing tool, but “similarity” percentages can be misleading and careful user evaluation of the entire paper shown with flagged highlighting is necessary in order to fairly assess student intent. Keywords: plagiarism detection, originality, second language learning, Turnitin Introduction From a review of the huge number of studies in the literature, it is immediately apparent that plagiarism and the use of plagiarism detection software are challenging issues. A great deal of research has been done on plagiarism (for an excellent overview, see Flowerdew & Li, 2007:162); however, it is also clear that there is no agreed upon definition or nomenclature, particularly when applied to the reproduction of text, as opposed to ideas (see Pecorari, 2001). Suggested terms include textual plagiarism (Flowerdew & Li, 2007), textual borrowing (Shi, 2006), textual and prototypical plagiarism (Pecorari, 2001), and plagiphrasing (Whitaker, 1993). Other researchers have suggested that plagiarism is a Western standard that dates back to the appearance of the printing press in the Middle Ages (Flowerdew & Li, 2007) and is not applicable in other cultures, particularly those in Asia and the Middle East (Click, 2012; Sowden, 2005). The use of plagiarism software for student writing is also an issue. Turnitin (http://turnitin.com/), arguably the most commonly used plagiarism detection software, has been banned from several universities, most notably Yale, Harvard, Princeton (The Daily Princetonian, 2006; Hanrahan, 2008; Bretag & Mahmud, 2009), and others, and its 1 CALL-EJ, 17(1), 1-18 mandatory use has been legally challenged in other academic institutions (CBC, 2004; The McGill Daily, 2005). Second Language Learning and Plagiarism In a second language (L2) context, there seem to be several important issues concerning plagiarism. These include whether students fully grasp the concepts of similarity (i.e., how strings of words can be matched as “similar” to words in a database by software), originality and plagiarism; what role cultural expectations may play; and if the practice of plagiarism may simply be a developmental issue, which disappears as students increase their productive vocabulary and learn how to take better notes, summarize, paraphrase and quote sources. In their detailed qualitative examination of Turnitin through student questionnaire responses on its use, Bensal, Miraflores and Tan (2013) explored the first of these issues and concluded that the students in their study tended to miss the point of originality; in other words, that they focused their efforts on “rephrasing to evade high percentages of Similarity Index ratings more than trying to explain the real concepts in the paper guided by a real sense of academic integrity” (p. 17). Some international students may not intend to deceive, but rather engage in various forms of plagiarism because they believe memorization and recitation to be acceptable and valuable, or they may have difficulty understanding that someone can own an idea (Sutherland-Smith, 2005; Trudeau & Sevier, undated). Shi (2006) investigated plagiarism (“textual appropriation”) and found that students did not understand what needed citing and what did not; and nonwestern students viewed the idea of plagiarism as “foreign and unacceptable” (p. 264). Jones and Freeman (2003) describe a “benign learning process” in which students learn to copy format, segments, and phrases, resulting in the perception of copying as a valid form of learning. L2 students are often given “sentence templates,” or taught to search out clusters in corpora to incorporate into writing (Hunston, 2002), and the introduction of corpus pedagogy to find and use common expressions or formulaic writing may contribute to learner uncertainty, i.e., confusion between what is common usage and allowable, and what is unique, and not. Flowerdew and Li (2007) summarize the use of plagiarism as a student survival strategy based on the belief that some copying is acceptable to combat task overload and pressure to pass assessments, and to compensate for a lack of confidence in using the target language (p. 169). These studies offer a glimpse into why students might plagiarize; however, there are limited studies on evaluating the functionality and accuracy of Turnitin in an L2 context. Stapleton (2012) evaluated whether or not Turnitin was a deterrent for plagiarizing in a study on writing produced by L1 graduate students. He found that students who were aware their work would be checked had lower percentages, but also noted that the software was not necessarily accurate and should be used with caution. Walker (2010) used Turnitin to assess the frequency, nature and extent of plagiarism in university business student writing, but did not assess its accuracy or provide suggestions for more effective use. 2 CALL-EJ, 17(1), 1-18 Purpose of the Study Turnitin was recently adopted by a Japanese university and made available to English academic writing teachers (two of the authors). The purpose of this paper is to investigate how the software could be best employed in an L2 science and engineering context by evaluating the functionality and accuracy of the program; and suggesting modifications that could make it a more effective tool for L2 students and teachers. In this study, two important assumptions are made. First, it is recognized that Turnitin was not created as a teaching tool for L2 writing students. This investigation is not a criticism of the software but rather is an excursion into how it functions in an L2 environment and how it might be adapted to be more effective. Secondly, Turnitin was originally created and marketed as a plagiarism detection software (Barrie & Presti, 2000), and in the perceptions of many users remains so (Shi, 2006; Stapleton, 2012; Vie, undated). Turnitin provides an initial percentage of “similar” or “matching” text and flags questionable (“similar”) passages; this study is an evaluation of this percentage and specific flagged strings of words in order to more clearly understand whether or these results can, in fact, be viewed as plagiarism. Method Operational Definitions Turnitin is only able to identify language in the form of sequential words or strings that match against its database through its use of algorithms, however plagiarism in the sense of the use of another’s ideas without citation, is not measured or evaluated. Thus an evaluation of the software is only possible in terms of how effectively it identifies to what extent students use identical phrasing to source texts or other students’ work. Participants Research papers written by 68 third and fourth year undergraduate students as the final task of an academic writing course were screened for plagiarism using Turnitin. The students belonged to various departments in the faculty of science and engineering. The students had a wide range of English language abilities based on teacher observation, and self-reported Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC) scores ranging from 390 to 950. They were enrolled in a weekly 90 minute, one semester (14 week) elective writing course with a goal of producing a 2,000-word research paper on a topic of their choice in their technical fields, formatted in IEEE style (http://www.ieee.org/documents/stylemanual.pdf). Students were given instruction in research writing, including how to cite and reference sources and how to take notes in their own words and quote, paraphrase and summarize. University policy governing plagiarism was provided both in the L1 (Japanese) and L2 (English), and students were repeatedly reminded “not to copy” because “plagiarized papers will fail.” Participants signed a consent form to allow their work to be used for research purposes. 3 CALL-EJ, 17(1), 1-18 Procedure The university provides Turnitin for teachers’ use, and the interface is found on the university network. To access Turnitin, a teacher creates a folder into which each student submits a paper. A settings option for Turnitin is available to the teacher so that all papers will be automatically checked when uploaded by the students. A percentage denoting the “Plagiarism Detection Results” and a coloured box representing the scale of the problem appear next to each student’s name once the paper completes its run through the program. In Figure 1, the first result shows 28% with a yellow code; subsequent results are shown with various percentages and green codes. The figure is truncated to conceal identifying information about the students. Figure 1. A partial class list with colour-coded “Plagiarism Detection Results”. Functionality For the first analysis, the original colour-coded “plagiarism detection” percentage shown in the folder class list was noted for each student paper. Turnitin filters allow users to identify and exclude quotes and bibliography from the “Plagiarism Detection Results” percentage, and these filters were then activated so that quotes and bibliography [hereafter referred to as references] would be excluded. The new percentage was noted. (This had to be done manually for each paper because of this particular system set-up.) Accuracy By clicking on the underlined percentage next to “plagiarism detection results” in the class list, a document viewer is loaded.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Central Florida Future, Vol. 35 No. 65, May 28, 2003
    University of Central Florida STARS Central Florida Future University Archives 5-28-2003 Central Florida Future, Vol. 35 No. 65, May 28, 2003 Part of the Mass Communication Commons, Organizational Communication Commons, Publishing Commons, and the Social Influence and oliticalP Communication Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/centralfloridafuture University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Newspaper is brought to you for free and open access by the University Archives at STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Central Florida Future by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation "Central Florida Future, Vol. 35 No. 65, May 28, 2003" (2003). Central Florida Future. 1637. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/centralfloridafuture/1637 - Making the grade Baseball loses Loaded grade points after IO?i ng summer season in A­ Film students Sun play. critique . -SEE summer SPORTS, 10 sequels. -:-SEE LIFESTYLES, 12 THE STUDENT NEWSPAPER .SERVING UCF SINCE 1968 THE- GENDER GAP ;Study: Women p.aid ~ · their worth at UCF JASON IRSAY of faculty pay, UCF's administration· both years, is there is virtually no sig­ STAFF WRITER was plea&antly surprised: UCF has nificant difference between male ·and 1• almost no ·significant gap, and in one female faculty members." A national . Despite consistently low pay for category, -women are paid more than survey released in April paints a dif­ female faculty at coll~ges throughout men. ferent picture for most colleges. ·the nation, UCF has reached relative "We analyzed both fall 1999 and . Though faculty salaries for both men parity in · salaries; according to two fall 20,00 ·faculty salary data," said ~nd women are rising, women contin- recent surveys.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Turnitin to Provide Feedback on L2 Writers' Texts
    The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language August 2016 – Volume 20, Number 2 Using Turnitin to Provide Feedback on L2 Writers’ Texts * * * On the Internet * * * Ilka Kostka Northeastern University Boston, MA, USA <[email protected]> Veronika Maliborska Northeastern University Boston, MA, USA <[email protected]> Abstract Second language (L2) writing instructors have varying tools at their disposal for providing feedback on students’ writing, including ones that enable them to provide written and audio feedback in electronic form. One tool that has been underexplored is Turnitin, a widely used software program that matches electronic text to a wide range of electronic texts found on the Internet and in the program’s massive repository. While Turnitin is primarily known for detecting potential plagiarism, we believe that instructors can make use of two features of the program (GradeMark tools and originality checker) to provide formative and summative feedback on students’ drafts. In this article, we use screenshots to illustrate how we have leveraged Turnitin to provide feedback to undergraduate L2 writers about their writing and use of sources. We encourage instructors who have access to Turnitin to explore the different features of this tool and its potential to create opportunities for learning. Introduction Educators have long been concerned about plagiarism, and developments in technology and the Internet over the past two decades have further complicated the issue. One way that institutions have responded to these concerns is by purchasing matched text detection software, which is often referred to as plagiarism detection software. Simply defined, matched text detection software matches text to other electronic text to determine how similar the texts are to each other.
    [Show full text]
  • Glossary of Tools and Terms
    REPRODUCIBLE Glossary of Tools and Terms This appendix includes a list of terms and resources we introduced and used throughout the book. Apps, programs, and websites are listed, as well as digital and academic terms that will aid you in lesson planning both NOW and in the future. 1:1 or one to one: Describes the number of technology devices (iPads, laptops, Chromebooks) given to each student in an academic setting; a 1:1 school has one device per each student. 1:2 or one to two: Describes the number of technology devices (iPads, laptops, Chromebooks) given to each student in an academic setting; a 1:2 school means that one technology device is available for every two students in an academic setting. Two classes may share one class set, or students may partner up to use devices. Animoto (https://animoto.com): A video-creation website and app with limited free features and options for educator accounts (see https://animoto.com/education/classroom) Annotable (www.moke.com/annotable): A full-featured image-annotation tool Appy Pie (www.appypie.com): A free do-it-yourself software tool for building apps in three easy steps Audacity (www.audacityteam.org): A free macOS and Windows software tool for editing complex audio clips AutoRap (www.smule.com/listen/autorap/79): An iOS and Android app for mixing audio tracks to create a rap; the free version allows users to choose from two beats to make a song, and the paid version allows users to choose from a large selection of beats, including new and popular songs.
    [Show full text]
  • Institutional Self-Evaluation Report 2017 (PDF)
    Solano Community College Institutional Self-Evaluation Report in Support of Reaffirmation of Accreditation Submitted by: Solano Community College 4000 Suisun Valley Road Fairfield, CA 94534 Submitted to: Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges Western Association of Schools and Colleges August 2017 BOARD OF TRUSTEES ROSEMARY THURSTON, PRESIDENT SARAH CHAPMAN, PH.D., VICE PRESIDENT DENIS HONEYCHURCH, J.D. PAM KEITH MICHAEL A. MARTIN QUINTEN R. VOYCE A. MARIE YOUNG CELIA ESPOSITO-NOY, ED.D., BOARD SECRETARY SUPERINTENDENT-PRESIDENT CELIA ESPOSITO-NOY, ED.D. ACCREDITATION LIAISON OFFICER DAVID WILLIAMS, PH.D. ACCREDITATION SELF EVALUATION COORDINATOR SAKI CABRERA, PH.D. ACCREDITATION LEAD WRITER MELISSA REEVE ACADEMIC SENATE PRESIDENT MICHAEL WYLY Table of Contents Introduction History of the Institution .................................................................................................... 1 Presentation of Student Achievement Data and Institution-Set Standards ........................ 5 Organization of the Self Evaluation Process ................................................................... 39 Organizational Information .............................................................................................. 43 Certification of Continued Institutional Compliance with Eligibility Requirements ................................................................................... 59 Certification of Continued Institutional Compliance with Commission Policies ............ 61 Standard I ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Turnitin Student Guide Contents
    Turnitin Student Guide Turnitin Student Guide Contents Introduction to the Turnitin Tool .............................................................................................................................. 2 Reasons to Use the Turnitin Tool .............................................................................................................................. 2 Checking Your Work with Turnitin ............................................................................................................................ 3 Submitting a File .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Accessing the Originality Report ..................................................................................................................................... 4 Understanding the Originality Report ....................................................................................................................... 5 Coincidental Matches ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Significant Matches ......................................................................................................................................................... 5 Match: Work Submitted by Another Student ............................................................................................................. 6 Match: Outside
    [Show full text]
  • Point Park University Self-Study 2020
    Point Park University Self-Study 2020 POINT PARK UNIVERSITY SELF-STUDY 2020-2021 REPARED EPTEMBER P S 30, 2020 Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Standard I: Mission and Goals ...................................................................................................... 14 Standard II: Ethics and Integrity ................................................................................................... 24 Standard III: Design and Delivery of the Student Learning Experience ...................................... 35 Standard IV: Support of the Student Experience .......................................................................... 52 Standard V: Educational Effectiveness Assessment ..................................................................... 71 Standard VI: Planning, Resources, and Institutional Improvement .............................................. 83 Standard VII: Governance, Leadership, and Administration...................................................... 104 Committee Membership.............................................................................................................. 114 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 117 Point Park
    [Show full text]
  • Media Kit 2020
    MEDIA KIT 2020 © 2019 Oregonian Media Group. All rights reserved. Full Version 1. Your Local Business Partner We want to empower our local businesses, to help them grow and succeed and build thriving communities. Because we’re a part of the community, too. To do that, we use the most innovative technology we can find. The same technology we use to reach millions of readers. Backed by talented people, proven processes and powerful networks. And it takes true partners to get results. So our teams become your advocates. We believe great relationships start with collaboration, run on integrity, and depend on accountability. Here’s how we can help. THE OREGONIAN MARKETING SOLUTIONS TEAM MEDIA KIT 2019 YOUR LOCAL BUSINESS PARTNER 2 MEDIA KIT 2019 MISSION + VALUES 4 OUR REACH 7 OUR SOLUTIONS 15 OUR MARKETING TECHNOLOGY 26 OUR MARKETING PROCESS 29 PRINT ADVERTISING OPTIONS 35 MEDIA KIT 2019 INDEX 3 MISSION + VALUES MISSION + VALUES MISSION We make a difference in the communities we serve by empowering our audiences with high-quality news and information. We partner with our clients to help them grow. We will succeed as a constantly evolving company by embracing innovative ideas, talented people and a progressive culture. MEDIA KIT 2019 MISSION + VALUES | MISSION 5 MISSION + VALUES VALUES Collaboration Customer Focus Integrity Fearlessness Accountability MEDIA KIT 2019 MISSION + VALUES | VISION 6 OUR REACH OUR AUDIENCE IS 8.7M OREGONLIVE 1 UNPARALLELED UNIQUE VISITORS 1.1 M FOLLOWERS ON SOCIAL MEDIA 2 782 K READERS OF THE OREGONIAN & E-EDITION 3 Source: 1. Google Analytics. Aug. 2019; 2.
    [Show full text]
  • POL 493/POL 2893: Writing About Politics Thursday 10- 12 Pm in TC 24 Office Hours 1-2 Pm (Sid Smith 3118)
    POL 493/POL 2893: Writing About Politics Thursday 10- 12 pm in TC 24 Office Hours 1-2 pm (Sid Smith 3118) Email: [email protected] This workshop is focused on writing about politics. I use the term politics in a broad sense to include issues about social justice, identity (race, gender, sexuality, and class), and the reproduction or disruption of power. All students will be asked to complete two works of creative nonfiction (genres include personal essays, profiles, observational or descriptive essays, argumentative or idea-based essays, extended book reviews, and literary journalism). Nonfiction aims to provide true information about the world. Creative nonfiction differs from scholarly writing insofar as it also aims to interest, inform, persuade, and entertain readers, often all at once. A successful essay moves between the concrete particulars (character, place, conflict) and the general (theory, principle, policy). Writing about politics requires knowledge about politics and also skill at writing. This course builds on knowledge you have acquired throughout your coursework and helps you to communicate it to a broader audience. A workshop has a distinctive format, and this class will be very different from a seminar or lecture course. Attendance and active participation are extremely important. You should think of yourself as a participant in collective project that aims to help each member to improve as a writer. You must be prepared to share your writing and to provide other students with feedback on their writing. Readings: All readings will be either available through course reserves or will be provided as hard copies in class.
    [Show full text]
  • Plagiarism: Teaching Writing in the Digital Age
    Vicinus, Martha. Originality, Imitation, and Plagiarism: Teaching Writing In the Digital Age. E-book, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2008, https://doi.org/10.3998/dcbooks.5653382.0001.001. Downloaded on behalf of Unknown Institution originality, imitation, and plagiarism Vicinus, Martha. Originality, Imitation, and Plagiarism: Teaching Writing In the Digital Age. E-book, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2008, https://doi.org/10.3998/dcbooks.5653382.0001.001. Downloaded on behalf of Unknown Institution digitalculturebooks is a collaborative imprint of the University of Michigan Press and the University of Michigan Library dedicated to publishing innovative work about the social, cultural, and political impact of new media. Vicinus, Martha. Originality, Imitation, and Plagiarism: Teaching Writing In the Digital Age. E-book, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2008, https://doi.org/10.3998/dcbooks.5653382.0001.001. Downloaded on behalf of Unknown Institution Dg^\^cVa^in!>b^iVi^dc! VcYEaV\^Vg^hb Sd`bghmfVqhshmfhmsgdChfhs`k@fd Caroline Eisner and Martha Vicinus dchsnqr sgdtmhudqrhsxnelhbghf`moqdrr`mc sgdtmhudqrhsxnelhbghf`mkhaq`qx Ann Arbor Vicinus, Martha. Originality, Imitation, and Plagiarism: Teaching Writing In the Digital Age. E-book, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2008, https://doi.org/10.3998/dcbooks.5653382.0001.001. Downloaded on behalf of Unknown Institution Copyright © by the University of Michigan 2008 All rights reserved Published in the United States of America by The University of Michigan Press and The University of Michigan Library Manufactured in the United States of America c Printed on acid-free paper 2011 2010 2009 2008 4 3 2 No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, or otherwise, without the written permission of the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 - 2014 Catalog
    SCHREINER UNIVERSITY 2013 - 2014 CATALOG Mission Schreiner University, a liberal arts institution affiliated by choice and covenant with the Presbyterian Church (USA), is committed to educating students holistically. Primarily under- graduate, the university offers a personalized, integrated education that prepares its students for meaningful work and purposeful lives in a changing global society. Vision Schreiner University will always hold student success as its first priority. The university will be known for its academic rigor; it will continue to be an institution of opportunity where stu- dents from a variety of backgrounds and experiences learn through educational programs equipping them to achieve, excel, and lead. The university aspires to serve as a standard to oth- ers in programs and practices. Values Schreiner University • holds sacred the Christian convictions that each student is valuable and unique and that the university’s purpose is to enable every student to grow intellectually, physically and spir- itually. • values diversity of people and thought in a setting of open, civil discourse. • embraces life-long learning and service to society as critical traits in a world whose com- munity is global. • believes that higher education is instrumental in developing thoughtful, productive, and ethical citizens. • believes that the values that inform our relationships with our students should also inform our relationships with one another. Goals • Support, promote, and initiate curricular and co-curricular programs which instill a cul- ture of demonstrable excellence within a diverse community of scholars. • Foster internal conditions and relationships and expand external partnerships with pro- fessional, service, and church-related communities to further the university’s strategic vision.
    [Show full text]
  • Syllabus) Before Every Class Session
    SSYYLLLLAABBUUSS -- WWrriittiinngg 113399 Time: Tu-Th, 11:00 - 12:20p (33504) Location: HH 100 Instructor: Libby Catchings Office Location: 537 MKH Contact: [email protected] Office Hours : Tues. 1:30-4:00 Course Listserv: [email protected] Course Director: Jonathan Alexander Contact: [email protected] Course Website: (eee + Writing Studio) COURSE DESCRIPTION Writing 139W: Writing 139W fulfills the upper-division writing breadth requirement for students in any major. Completing all ESL and lower-division writing requirements is prerequisite. The course carries four academic units and may be taken pass / no pass unless your department requires that you take it for a letter grade. Making and Breaking Chains : American popular culture is obsessed with prison; shows like Beyond Scared Straight and Jail bubble up alongside home improvement programming, while Lady Gaga uses the prison as her personal runway. At the same time, we continue to traffic in the memories of slavery, most recently via the Adidas "shackle" shoe incident and the Kanye/Jay Z collaboration, No Church in the Wild. So what is it about these two forms of bondage that capture the popular imagination, and what is the relationship between them? Ironically, looking these forms of bondage becomes the basis for defining that most cherished of American values: freedom. This course addresses how freedom, slavery, and the prison have been represented by writers working in diverse genres in order to ask how—and why—the philosophical, sociological, and (popular) cultural representations of freedom and bondage are constructed in particular ways. Historically, claims about what it means to be free -- or even human -- have been made through discourses about enslavement and imprisonment; some have used bondage as a trope to explore philosophical or artistic projects, while others have used it to interrogate the assumptions of various political and economic paradigms.
    [Show full text]
  • Don't Make Students Turnitin If You Won't Give It Back Samuel J
    Florida Law Review Volume 60 | Issue 1 Article 5 11-18-2012 Two Wrongs Don't Negate a Copyright: Don't Make Students Turnitin if You Won't Give it Back Samuel J. Horovitz [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr Part of the Education Law Commons, and the Intellectual Property Commons Recommended Citation Samuel J. Horovitz, Two Wrongs Don't Negate a Copyright: Don't Make Students Turnitin if You Won't Give it Back, 60 Fla. L. Rev. 229 (2008). Available at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol60/iss1/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Law Review by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Horovitz: Two Wrongs Don't Negate a Copyright: Don't Make Students Turnitin TWO WRONGS DON’T NEGATE A COPYRIGHT: DON’T MAKE STUDENTS TURNITIN IF YOU WON’T GIVE IT BACK Samuel J. Horovitz* I. INTRODUCTION ....................................230 II. THE PLAGIARISM PROBLEM ...........................233 A. The Prevalence of Plagiarism ......................233 B. The Harms of Plagiarism ..........................235 III. TURNITIN .........................................236 A. The Origins of Turnitin ...........................236 B. How It Works ...................................237 IV. COPYRIGHT .......................................238 A. Copyright Basics ................................238 B. General Copyright Analysis of Turnitin ..............242 1. Document Submission .........................242 2. Fingerprinting ................................242 3. Originality Evaluation .........................244 4. Archiving ...................................245 C. Fair Use .......................................245 1. Fair Use Defined..............................245 2. The Statutory Factors ..........................246 3. Plagiarism vs. Copyright Infringement: Does Plagiarism Prevention Merit Special Treatment in a Fair Use Analysis? .
    [Show full text]